Gaiduku •
Comments

Page 2 of 4

@neuroniky I actually think removing the forums is good for the user. Forums really aren't a good forum (pun intended?!?) for talking about issues with a game.

Areanet using the forums to see what people complaining about would be the equivalent of all of us going to their offices and hurling abuse at them for hours. They'd struggle to find out what the most important issues were. Removing the forums forces people to use the support options as intended - sending them messages and the like - much more organised. Reply+1

How can you review this game without mentioning the terrible MIDI soundtrack? This whole re-release is a joke and should be treated as such. The game is of course unchanged and, yeah still pretty good, if you ignore how much its aged graphically.

If you're desperate to play FF7 then for gods sake get it on PSN if you can. Reply+24

@Velocityraptor I've been thinking about this recently - about how some of the best games I've played recently have been incredibly short. As in one sit down play session and you're done.

I'm talking about games like Journey and The Walking Dead (when taken on an episode by episode basis). We're at a point now with digital distribution where making a short game is a lot more acceptable because the developers can set reasonable prices. They don't need to charge £40 for a game 'just cos'.

However, I'm not sure this totally applies to RPGs yet but I can definitely see RPGs decreasing in size and tbh it's not necessarily a terrible thing. There's definitely a place for beastly games like Dragon Age Origins or Skyrim. Quest monsters which can keep you enthralled for months but these are games I just never bloody finish.

The Mass Effect genre (perhaps excluding 3) was great because they actually weren't that long and still got you immersed into the world and delivered a solid story. I recently played the Witcher 2 and it's by no means short but it didn't take me a lifetime to complete and again was a very (VERY) good game.

So I don't see the release of a 2 hour RPG any time soon (30 second hero excluded) but maybe shorter.... 15-20 hour RPGs have their place. Reply+1

This story is hilarious. The Dad's an idiot, the kids pulled a fast one and obviously knew what the hell he was doing and then the Daily Mail thinks this will make a good story and get everyone riled up with Microsoft.

There are several menus you have to go through before you buy the microsoft points and its very very clear it costs real money. If anything this is the only good thing about microtransactions - its stops kids just finding a game on the marketplace and immediately buying it - they're forced through the points menu and payment menu first.

I have no doubt that this kid new he was paying real money. It's possible he didn't really know how much he was spending and just wasn't paying attention but still he knew he was spending Daddy's money. The Dad['s just blaming microsoft and getting this story out with a vain and useless hope Microsoft will reimburse him. Reply0

@wanmookey The matrix analogy here is a good one and makes sense with the ending. The star child is very similar to the Architect and his choices were also very similar.

However the issue here is that, yes fundamentally the Matrix and Mass effect have similar plots in so much as its about man vs machine. However, the architect scenes in the martix kinda fitted with the general tone of things. The writing, the illusion of choice - it all made sense here. Yet, despite being set in space and everyone having crazy biotic powers, Mass effect was for the most part set in the real world.

The game story was very literal whereas a lot of the matrix was very metaphorical. Kill the council or dont kill them, destroy the collector base or dont destroy it. The choices were real choices not some arty farty metaphor about life. Yet it seemed like bioware really liked that scene at the end of the second matrix film and just made their own version of that. The choices suddenly become more abstract and the writing noticeably different.

Unfortunately this was always going to be doomed somewhat. As mentioned in the article, you can't patch memories. Whatever bioware chose to do here could not fix the fact the original ending was not just disappointing in its abruptness, or in its melancholy tone, but in the fact that it just didn't really fit with the game at all.

Bioware essentially had three options here with this DLC and for the sake of a witty comment I'm going to use the analogy of Mass Effect 3, three silly endings.

1) Destroy: They start afresh and completely "destroy" the original endings and make something completely new. There was very little chance of this happening because it would be a complete admission of how silly the original endings were.

2) Synthesis: They combine the original ending with the much lauded indoctrination theory. Sure a few people out there would have enjoyed this but for many it would show that Bioware's fans can write better than Bioware's hired writers

3) Control: What Bioware actually did. They took "control" of their original endings (okay this one is a bit dubious...) and just added bits to them. Again, disappointing but at least they're sticking to their guns somewhat. Reply+19

This is not the point of DLC. Downloadable content should allow developers and publishers to create expansions and extras for a completed game. Most commonly this will involve extra missions or multiplayer maps for the player to enjoy after they have finished most/all of the original game. It should not be used as a way to charge extra for parts of the game you've already made prior to release date.

Let me get this straight... stock is lended to Game by the publishers not just sold. I kinda just assumed Game bought the games they planned to sell from the publishers and then sold them to consumers - this article mentioned Game discussing "Lending Terms" with their stock which confused me a bit. Reply0

@Monkeyspoon It does't look like they go far... and i think they have some method of controlling that. Copies have been launched from San Francisco and New York and neither of them ended up in the sea Reply0

I don't understand why the games industry think they are allowed to do something like this were practically every other consumer driven industry out there just doesnt. Of course this is different with digital media this is changing a bit e.g. with downloadable music and ebooks.

However, when you buy something physical you should always be able to do what you want with it. It's your's - you paid for it and if you dont want it anymore you should be able to pass it on whether that be for a bit of cash or just to give to a friend. This is how it works for everything else in the world why are games so different?! Sure TV shows and movies cost millions to produce but you still allowed to sell them on in the exact same way.

Also what really annoys me about this article is that games "only" cos $60 as if this is absurdly cheap. There are several issues here. First of all some games are worth this kinda of money, or at least worth more than others. Games come in much different lengths than movies or TV shows yet they all cost roughly the same price. Sure I'll pay full price for Skyrim but for something linear and relatively short? No i'll wait for a price drop or get it second hand.

Secondly, I'm a working adult now. I can afford to buy a fair few games now. However, not that long ago I could barely afford 2 or 3 full priced games a year. New games would be for birthdays and Christmas only. Yet back then if i really wanted a new game I could still head down to the gamestore - trade in 4 or 5 older games and get the brand new game i want for significantly cheaper. Removing the used game trade is just gonna ruin things for the younger gamer. Reply-2

Any idea where i can actually buy this game. Game, Amazon and Gamestation are all "out of stock" and Play.com says the release date isnt until end of January. According to the wiki page it came out on the 25th November but seeing as no one is selling it I find that quite unlikely..... Reply0

When I saw this on the front page I assumed a member of the EG staff had died which would have obviously been very sad.

The fact that this relates not to a member of staff, but to a member of the EG forum is truly amazing. I can't think of any other site I frequent that would leave such a heartfelt send off to one of their community members.

Kudos Eurogamer

And more importantly my thoughts go out to Allie's family at what must be a horrible time for them. I don't really go on the forum here but from the sounds of things he was a great guy and I wish i could have had at least one internet argument with him before his untimely passing. Reply+3

@vamos I believe my post might have been worded incorrectly. I didnt mean that all games require an online component. Of course that would be ridiculous. I don't really want multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 or the newest Bioshock game.

However, a game like Lylat wars, which 10 -15 years ago was an amazing game to play with friends locally was screaming out for online multiplayer. In regards to your other point - about split screen multiplayer, I absolutely 100% agree with you there. The complete disregard for local multiplayer this generation is very very annoying. Last generation was full of amazing games that were only really fun when played with a few friends in the same room as you. For example, I don't think Timesplitters 2 would have been half as fun as an online game.

Saying that though the inclusion of an online mode cannot cost that much! It's almost offensive to hear nintendo tell us how vast the costs would be when practically every other game around these days includes an online mode whether or not it is really needed. Reply+9